Propagation Modeling Parameters for

Wind Power Projects

Kenneth Kaliski and Eddie Duncan, Resource Systems Group, Inc., White River Junction, Vermont

To study how ground attenuation and wind speed affect the accuracy of propagation modeling for wind turbines, data were gathered
at an existing industrial-scale wind farm, and propagation modeling
was conducted using Cadna A modeling software by Datakustik,
GmbH for the same site under the same operating conditions in
which monitoring was carried out. By adjusting the type of ground
attenuation used in the model and the meteorological conditions,
the best combinations for modeling propagation for wind turbines
were determined with comparisons to the monitored data.

Based on a paper presented at Noise-Con 2007, Institute of Noise Control

Engineering, Reno, NV, October, 2007.

12

SOUND & VIBRATION/DECEMBER 2008

80-meter source, 1 meter receiver height, G = 1

2
0

2
4

80-meter source, 1 meter receiver height, G = 0

0

500

1000

1500
2000
Distance, m

2500

3000

3500

Figure 1. Spectral ground attenuation (Agr) over distance for an 80-m and
1-m-high source; 1-m-high receiver and ground factor set to 1 (soft) and 0
(hard).
6

Standards Background

4
Agr + D

ISO 9613-2 (1996)1,2 provides two methods for calculating

ground effect (Agr). The first method, known as spectral ground
attenuation, divides the ground area between the source and the
receiver into three regions: a source region, a receiver region, and
a middle region. The source region extends from the source toward the receiver at a distance equal to 30 times the height of the
source. For a tall wind turbine, this can be up to 2 to 3 km. The
receiver region extends from the receiver toward the source at a
distance equal to 30 times the height of the receiver. If the source
and receiver regions do not overlap, the distance between the two
regions is defined as the middle region. The ISO standard goes on
to define ground attenuation for each octave band utilizing a ground
factor (G) for each region depending on how reflective or absorptive it is. For reflective, hard ground, G=0; and porous, absorptive
ground suitable for vegetation, G=1. If the ground is a mixture of
the two, G equals the fraction of the ground that is absorptive. The
ISO standard states that This method of calculating the ground
effect is applicable only to ground that is approximately flat, either
horizontally or with a constant slope.
The second method provided in ISO 9613-2, known as nonspectral ground attenuation, is for modeling A-weighted sound pressure
level over absorptive or mostly absorptive ground; but the ground
does not need to be flat. Using the alternative method also requires
an additional factor (D) be added to the modeled sound power
level to account for reflections from the ground near the source.
To show the effect of using spectral vs. nonspectral ground attenuation for a source at a reasonable wind turbine hub height of
80 m, the ground attenuation (Agr) was calculated using both methods for a source height of 80 m and 1 m over a range of distances
from 0 to 3.5 km with the ground factor, G, set to zero. In a third
scenario, G was set to 1, and an 80-m source height was used. In
each example, the receiver height was set at 1 meter. The results for
spectral ground attenuation are shown in Figure 1, and nonspectral
ground attenuation results are shown in Figure 2.
As shown in the graphs, over soft, porous, spectral ground, attenuation for an 80-meter source is approximately 2 dB less than
a 1-meter source. For nonspectral ground attenuation, an 80-m
source height actually has negative ground attenuation over the
first 750 m due to reflections from the ground.
ISO 9613-2 is only valid for moderate nighttime inversions or
downwind conditions. The valid range of wind speeds is 1 to 5
m/s at 3 to 11 m high. For wind turbines, it may be more accurate
to consider adjustments such as those presented by CONCAWE3

1-meter source/receiver height, G = 1

Agr

Noise modeling of wind turbines can be problematic in that

they generate sound over a large area, from a high elevation,
and make the most noise in very high wind conditions. For ISO
9613, these factors directly relate to how ground attenuation and
meteorology are accounted for.

1-meter source/receiver height

80-meter source, 1 meter receiver height

2
4

500

1000

1500
2000
Distance, m

2500

3000

3500

Figure 2. Nonspectral ground attenuation (Agr) over distance for an 80-m

and-1 m source and 1-m receiver height. Nonspectral ground attenuation
is not a function of ground hardness.

Figure 3. Rural 100-MW wind farm used to study ground attenuation and
meteorological modeling factors.

or HARMONOISE.4 These adjustments account for propagation at

various wind speed, wind directions, and atmospheric stability.
The CONCAWE meteorological adjustments are built into Cadna
A and were used in this study.

Wind Farm Background

The wind farm in this study is situated on nearly 8 square miles
of flat farm land. There are a total of 67 wind turbines that are capable of producing about 100 megawatts of electricity. Each turbine
hub is 80 m tall, and the rotation path of the three blades is 80 m
in diameter. The turbines are roughly 1,000 ft apart, but there is
a wide variation for individual pairs. An image of the terrain and
some of the turbines is shown in Figure 3, and Figure 4 shows the
layout of the wind farm.

Sound Monitoring
Two sound level meters were set up at 120 m and 610 m from
the northern edge of the wind farm. Each sound level meter was
an IEC Type I Cesva SC310 fitted with windscreens. The sound
level meter at 120 m was placed flat on a 1-m-square ground board,
www.SandV.com

Sound Pressure Level (dBA)

50
. 46
42
38
34
30
22:00 23:00 0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00
Time
dBA to 1kHz
ISO no ground
CONCAWE spectral G=1

ISO non-spectral
ISO spectral G=0
CONCAWE no ground

ISO spectral G=1

CONCAWE non-spectral

Figure 5. Comparison of monitored sound levels over time at 610 m (shown

in orange) with modeled sound levels under various combinations of ground
attenuation and meteorological factors.

Figure 4. Map of wind farm used for study ; asterisks = wind turbines.

while the meter at 610 m was mounted on a stake at approximately

1 m off the ground.
The measurement period was at night from approximately 10
p.m. to 10 a.m. Each meter logged 1-minute equivalent average
sound levels in 1/3-octave bands. In addition, recordings of WAV
files were made at certain points.
At the same time, spot measurements of wind speed and direction at hub height, blade rotational frequency, and energy output
for each wind turbine were made at 10-minute intervals.
Since we could not obtain background sound levels, we assumed
that much of the localized noise from wind passing through the
surrounding wheat field would be at and above 2,000 Hz. This was
confirmed by listening to and analyzing the WAV file recordings.
Therefore, to isolate the wind turbine sound, we created a virtual
low-pass filter eliminating sound at frequencies above 2 kHz. In
addition, assuming that the wind turbines operated within a narrow range of sound power over any one 10-minute period, we used
the 90th-percentile, 1-minute equivalent average sound level for
each 10-minute period for comparison to modeled results. This
minimized the localized effects of noise from wind gusts.

Sound Monitoring
The Cadna A sound propagation model made by Datakustik
GmbH was used to model sound levels from the wind farm. Cadna
A can use several standards of modeling, including ISO 9613 with
or without CONCAWE meteorological adjustments.
A model run was conducted for every 10-minute period of turbine operation during the monitoring period. This was done by
running Cadna A for the following scenarios:
Standard meteorology with spectral ground attenuation and
G=1.
Standard meteorology with spectral ground attenuation and
G=0.
Standard meteorology with nonspectral ground attenuation.
Standard meteorology with no ground attenuation.
CONCAWE adjustments for D/E stability with winds from the
south at greater than 3 m/s and spectral ground attenuation,
assuming G=1.
CONCAWE adjustments for D/E stability with winds from the
south at greater than 3 m/s and nonspectral ground attenuation.
CONCAWE adjustments for D/E stability with winds from the
south at greater than 3 m/s and no ground attenuation.
For each scenario, a protocol was run that listed the ISO 96132 attenuation and propagation factors by frequency between each
turbine and receivers at 120 m and 610 m from the northern end
of the wind farm; that is, the receivers represented by the sound
www.SandV.com

monitoring locations. These attenuation factors were then put into

a spreadsheet model that looked up the manufacturer sound power
level for each turbine for each 10-minute period based on actual
measured wind speeds at each turbine. The spreadsheet model
then calculated the sound level from each turbine by subtracting
the attenuation factors from the sound power levels and then
combining each turbine to get an overall sound pressure level at
the 610-m receiver.

Results
A comparison of the modeled results to monitored sound levels
over time is shown in Figure 5. The orange line toward the middle
is the actual monitored sound levels. As shown, these monitored
levels ranged from about 34 dBA to 43 dBA. Except for the period
between 2:00 and 3:00 a.m., the sound levels were highly correlated
with wind speed.
We conducted further regression analyses to determine which
method achieved the best fit to the modeled data. The results are
shown in Figures 6 and 7. Starting with Figure 6a, we found that
the CONCAWE meteorology combined with spectral ground attenuation had a coefficient close to 1.0 and, on average, underestimated
sound levels by only 1%. The CONCAWE meteorology along with
the nonspectral ground attenuation consistently overestimated
monitored sound levels. The ISO meteorology with nonspectral
ground attenuation yielded a good fit. The coefficient of 0.957 indicates that average modeled levels underestimated monitored levels
by about 4%. On the opposite end of the scale, the ISO meteorology along with spectral ground attenuation and G=1 significantly
underestimated modeled sound levels by an average of 13%.
Starting with Figure 7a, the CONCAWE meteorology with no
ground attenuation overestimated monitored sound levels by
approximately 13%, while the ISO meteorology with no ground
attenuation provided the best fit of all the runs, with a coefficient of
0.9924. Finally, the ISO meteorology with spectral ground attenuation and G=0 yields moderately accurate results but overestimates
by approximately 3%. All trend lines were statistically significant
with probabilities greater than 99%.

Discussion and Conclusions

The results of the study indicate the modeling of wind turbines
in flat and relatively porous terrain may yield results that underestimate actual sound levels when using the standard ISO 9613-2
algorithms with spectral ground attenuation and G=1. We found
that the best fit between modeled and monitored sound levels
for this case occurs when using ISO meteorology and no ground
attenuation. The second-best model fit was with the CONCAWE
adjustments for wind direction and speed along with spectral
ground attenuation and G=1. Using the ISO methodology with
nonspectral ground attenuation also yielded good results.
While the ISO 9613-2 methodology specifically recommends
spectral ground attenuation for flat or constant-slope terrain with
G=1, in this case, it underestimated the sound levels. This may be
due to the height of the hub (80 m) as compared with typical noise
SOUND & VIBRATION/DECEMBER 2008

13

50

(a) CONCAWE

50

Spectral, G=1
y = 0.9909x

nd

1:

lin

e
Tr

1:

Modeled Level, dBA

Modeled Level, dBA

35

Tr

40

30

35

40
Monitored Level, dBA

45

30

50

(c) ISO Spectral,

50

nd

lin

30

35

40
Monitored Level, dBA

45

50

(d) ISO

Non-spectral,
y = 0.957x

re
1T

n
re
1T

1:

lin

1:
45

Modeled Level, dBA

45

Modeled Level, dBA

lin

35

G=1,
y = 0.87x

40

35

30

d
en

45

40

50

Non-spectral
y = 1.0966x

45

30

(b) CONCAWE

40

35

30

35

40
Monitored Level, dBA

45

50

30

30

35

40
Monitored Level, dBA

45

50

Figure 6a-d. Comparison of modeled and monitored sound levels for four meteorological and ground attenuation combinations. Regression coefficients are
shown in the upper left-hand corner. Regression trendline shown in black; 1:1 trendline, indicating a match between monitored and modeled sound levels,
is shown in red. N = 60.

sources. That is, the sound waves may not significantly interact
with the ground over that distance. It may also be due to the fact
that sound from wind turbines comes not from a single point
we assumed a single point at hub height but is more likely to
be similar to a circular area source. Finally, wind turbines often
operate with wind speeds that are higher than ISO 9613-2 recommends. The combination of higher wind speeds and an elevated
noise source may result in greater downward refraction.
To be more representative, a larger dataset should be obtained.
Some improvements to the methodology and study would include:
Improved accounting for background sound levels.
Measurements of ground impedance so that the ISO 9613-2 G
factor can be better estimated.
Monitoring over a larger range of wind speeds.
Using ground boards for the measurement microphone to minimize self-induced wind noise.
Using larger wind screens.
Measuring at distances greater than 610 m.
Applying the methodology to other ground types and terrain.
Care should be taken in applying this methodology in other
projects that are not similar. Overall, the ISO 9613-2 methodology is appropriate for propagation modeling of wind turbines, but
modeling parameters should be adjusted appropriately to account
14

SOUND & VIBRATION/DECEMBER 2008

for this sources unique characteristics.

Acknowledgments
We acknowledge gratefully the project sponsor, Iberdrola, its
project manager, Krista Jo Gordon, and the wind farm operator,
enXco, for funding and cooperation. We also thank all those
who attended Noise-Con 2007 and Acoustics 08 who provided
valuable feedback on our methodology and many suggestions for
further study.

References

1. International Standards Organization, Acoustics Attenuation of Sound

During Propagation Outdoors, Part 1 Calculation of the Absorption of
Sound By The Atmosphere, ISO 9613-1, 1996.
2. International Standards Organization, Acoustics Attenuation of Sound
During Propagation Outdoors, Part 1 General Method of Calculation,
ISO 9613-2, 1996.
3. Manning, C. J., The Propagation of Noise from Petroleum and Petrochemical Complexes to Neighboring Communities, Report 4/81, CONCAWE,
1981.
4. Harmonized Accurate and Reliable Methods for the EU Directive on the
Assessment and Management Of Environmental Noise, Final Technical
Report, Information Society and Technology Program, European Commission, February 2005.
The author can be contacted at: kkaliski@rsginc.com.
www.SandV.com

50

(a) CONCAWE

No ground
attenuation,
y = 1.1312x

1:

d
en

lin

Tr

Modeled Level, dBA

45

40

35

30

50

(b) ISO

No ground
attenuation,
y = 0.9924x

1:

d
en

lin

Tr

Modeled Level, dBA

45

40

35

30
50

(c) ISO Spectral,

G=0,
y = 1.069x

1:

d
en

lin

Tr

Modeled Level, dBA

45

40

35

30

30

35

40
Monitored Level, dBA

45

50

Figure 7a-c. Comparison of modeled and monitored sound levels for three
meteorological and ground attenuation combinations. Regression coefficients
shown in upper left-hand corner. Regression trend line shown in black; 1:1
trend line, indicating a match between monitored and modeled sound levels,
is shown in red. N = 60.
www.SandV.com

SOUND & VIBRATION/DECEMBER 2008

15